About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 7
CSPAN 6
MSNBC 6
CSPAN2 5
KNTV (NBC) 2
WRC (NBC) 2
CNN 1
CNNW 1
WBAL (NBC) 1
LANGUAGE
English 40
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)
does this leave him? assume that he gets confirmed, he has to be a tough -- a tough guy at the pentagon. he is going to be tough with congress. he has to deal with the potential of the sequester, fighting for the budget that he does get, dealing with all of the problems that come at you when you are in charge of the pentagon and the generals and the other members of the joint chiefs are going to feel they can run over him. >> we'll see about that. i assume that every general with any number of stars was watching intently yesterday, and might have had that thought in mind. you said another important word, which is sequester. it's going to be a huge mess over there trying to, first, anticipate this, and then deal with whatever the new reality is. i do think that it was ugly yesterday. it was ugly on both sides. the white house wasn't so much from what i heard defending his performance as saying that those mean republicans also performed in an ugly and bad and not very attractive way. i don't think anybody looked particularly good in that showdown. i also think it's very clear that this is
that next paycheck may be smaller is not going over well among the troops. our pentagon correspondent barbara starr has the details. she's working the story. barbara, what's going on? >> wolf, in this town, there's nothing that causes more anxiety in budget politics than the concept of cutting the pay for the troops. but that is exactly what is on the table if congress and the president cannot reach an agreement on a spending plan. the troops usually are happy to see defense secretary leon panetta, smiles and handshakes all around. but days before he leaves office, panetta has bad news. he's proposing less money in their paycheck next year. panetta, a savvy washington operative in budget politics, is leaving it to congress to figure out how not to cut pay and keep thousands of defense employees on the job. >> we will furlough as many as 800,000 d.o.d. civilians around the country for up to 22 days. they could face a 20% cut in their salary. you don't think that's going to impact on our economy? >> but the recommendation to slow the military pay raise will put troops in the middle of t
. it is for these reasons that i believe he is the wrong person to lead the pentagon at this perilous and consequential time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, senator inhofe. we have two former chairmen of this committee with us to introduce senator hagel. no senator has had two dearer friends or better mentor is that -- mentors than i have had with senators nunn and warner. i want to welcome them back to this committee. i don't have to tell them that they are among dear, dear friends. it is a real treat to welcome you back to the committee. i will call on you, senator nunn, first. i will call you alphabetically. i have no better way to do it. sam? [laughter] sam, welcome back. >> first, for the record, seniority and age are two different things. senator levin, ranking member inhofe, i am honored to join my friend john warner in presenting chuck hagel to the committee and recommending that chuck be confirmed as our secretary of defense. i think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month, john warner and listed in the u.s. -- enlisted in the u.s. navy to fight in world war ii. that was
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
to start with a washington battle on full display this week when the president's pick to head the pentagon, former republican senator chuck hagel, came under fire from members of his own party during a very contentious confirmation hearing. >> name one person in your opinion who's intimidated by the israeli lobby in the united states senate. >> are we right or wrong? that's a pretty straightforward question. >> senator hagel, please answer the question i asked. today, do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad idea? >> all this raising questions about how effective chuck hagel will be if confirmed as secretary of defense. earlier this weekend, i sat down for a rare joint interview with the top military leadership the outgoing secretary f defense leon panetta and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff general martin dempsey. >>> secretary panetta, welcome back to "meet the press." general dempsey, welcome. let me start with the man that is poised to take your place. he underwent on thursday a pretty tough round of questioning. he seemed to struggle with a lot of the answers. of cou
of the events of the events in benghazi. there were a series of meetings in the pentagon for expanding the department of defense's response as well as to prepare for the potential outbreak of further violence throughout the region. during these meetings, secretary panetta authorized a number of deployments. i hope that secretary panetta and the chairman will provide the committee with detail on the circumstances that led them to these decisions. since september, there's been a great deal of focus on the supporting role that the marine corps guards played -- play in many u.s. diplomatic missions abroad. the marine corps did not have an lament in again-- in benghazi. the committee will be closely monitoring the use of these marines. our fiscal year 2013 national defense authorization act that requires the secretary of defense to conduct an assessment of the mission of the marine security guard program, whether it should be expanded and to report to congress on the results of this review. more immediately, the provision requires the secretary to develop a plan to increase the number of ma
other americans. the pentagon never received the request from the state academy for security, and did not have the resources to get support on the ground in time to thwart the attackers. leon panetta is stepping down. this hearing is four hours and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everybody. today the committee welcomes secretary of defense, leon panetta, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general martin dempsey. to testify about the department of defense's response the deadly terrorist attack on the u.s. temporary mission facility in benghazi, libya, last year. and the findings of its internal review following that attack, including lessons learned from benghazi. we will be receiving testimony next tuesday morning on the impact of sequestration and/or a full-year continuing resolution on the department of defense witnesses. there will be department secretary of defense, the comp driller and the joint chiefs of staff. i hope today's hearing with inform the committee of any changes being made or proposed to the posture of u.s.
your perspective on the pentagon's role in securing our embassies? we just had a near suicide attack, if you will, suicide bomber, at an embassy in turkey just last week. what can be done more than what has been done now? >> the important things to do are first of all you've got to build up the host country capacity. in the end, these embassies do depend on host country, the details that provide security. so you've got to try to develop that. >> this shouldn't be more marines? >> no, no. let me get the rest of the part of it. you have to harden these embassies as much as possible. and third, we have been working with the ste department to determine whether additional marines ought to be assigned to that area. and in the end, the final alternative is our ability to respond in having our troops in a position where they can respond quickly. but i have to tell you, a lot of that still is dependent on whether intelligence tells us that we've got a big problem, and gives us enough warning so that we can get to the place to respond. >> did you have enough time to get there in time? >> no. >
the drop program should fall under the pentagon, not the cia. you can listen to rebroadcast on c-span radio today. richards in result -- richard is on the line. what do you think about the drone's strikes? >> it is very vast modern-day technology. there will always be people killed a matter what we do. we have to grow up and understand that. the aclu is the biggest group of nuts on the planet. thank you. host: edmond, oklahoma. caller: i would just like to say one thing. the aclu is on the front of maintaining our constitutional rights. you may not agree with some of , but iflenges, i don't things they overall doing a good job. as far as the drones, they're working in that uncovered. in pakistan. i live in oklahoma and it has been in the paper recently that we have drone's being used here. one of your previous caller said there was a bill. from what i understand, we already have them here. we have a republican governor right now is in violation is not transparent, taking orders from right wing not jobs back east. and she now has these drones at her disposal. host: we heard earlier from form
. they don't receive combat pay and it's absolutely ridiculous. so recently, the pentagon established that a woman that serves in combat is entitled to receive all of the things that go with it to show our country's appreciation. so it seems to me that if we're going to have a draft and i really believe that if we did have a draft set up that congress would not be so anxious to the democrats and republicans to put our young people in harm's way. >> tell me why you say that because you're introduced this legislation multiple times and it's clearly something you're very committed to. you bet your life because the people in the congress that allow these things to go on, they have no fear that anyone in their community and their families are going to be making any sacrifice at all. less than 1% of americans, most of whom volunteer for economic reasons paid the price in terms of 6600 lives lost, tens of thousands of people wounded. veterans, american veterans coming home, disoriented, unemploy unemployed, some homeless and no one pays a price. i submit to you, we would not be in iraq, afgh
military activity is that nobody in the pentagon would have ordered military act ship without a specific order from the president. and the president wasn't around. rick: i want do ask you both, we have about a minute and a half left. another story came out of these hearings. that is the president himself, rick, himself opposed a plan that was supported by pretty much everybody else in his administration, to try to arm the rebels in syria. what do you make of that? >> you know i think it's remarkable that his team was really recommending that we needed to do something to support what was happening there and identify the opposition, the right opposition and then try to give them some sort of military support. and the president said no. i think this goes back to exactly who he is and what he believes the inate, positive, good of people. i think he doesn't understand, the president doesn't understand, this is a dangerous world and that we need to take sides to make sure that the right people are the ones who take hold in syria. it is the same thing that happened in egypt. really the same thi
, practiced at the pentagon. he had been working on this. >> so jill, is it a surprise that hagel seemed unprepared, or is it a surprise that republicans were going at him so hard? >> none of this should have been a surprise, thomas. i mean, they knew that the republicans were not happy with them. and the democrats, i think it's too strong to say they support him. they're going to hold their nose, perhaps, and vote for him, because the president wants him. but no one is really for him. so all of these things were expected. and he should have been prepped and ready to answer every single one of these things. he should have been prepared for "i want yes or no." he should have been prepared for iran and containment. i mean, even his correction was incorrect. >> and chip, let me talk to you, because our nbc's first read has out that hostile gop questioning might have made democrats even more you wanted, or so the white house hopes and believes. and this is what perry was referring to earlier about roy blunt appearing on "the daily rundown" . take a look. >> a majority in the senate should be
's the complement of non -- of folks from the state department that we send? the relationship between the pentagon and the state department seems to have changed as well. how will he weigh in on that? >> yeah, those are good questions. i think if i could just take two examples. with syria and also with afghanistan, you have questions of where the united states has to figure out some next policy steps that are pretty big and get to the question you raise, the balance between troops possibly, between diplomatic advisers, development experts, cia operatives, and where policy in the case of afghanistan has to make some changes, but it's generally on a predetermined course but it's going to have to vary quite a bit because we're drawing down troops now. in syria i think what we have is a policy for all the good intentions hasn't really worked. and if i were secretary kerry, i would probably commission my best people to do a two to four-week study on fundamentally new options in syria. where i think the united states has to recognize that what it's been doing so far hasn't been adequate and yet the coun
that bombed the pentagon, new york city police and the capitol, but there's 4,000 articles about marco rubio taking a drink of water. tell me what's wrong with that. >> and you mentioned the univision story and you'd figure the spanish language network would be proud of the fact one of our own delivering the response to the president not only in english, but spanish. and there are good people that work, but, but the executive news level clearly a culture problem when an employee thinks they can go on facebook and call a u.s. senator, a slave and all the things she said. if these things were said, either chris mathews comments or anybody else's there would be charges of racism, indignation, outrage. why is it conservatives get attacked this way and nobody seems to care in the media. >> i'm sorry if the president had taken that much water. >> sean: one drink of water. >> or hillary had, certainly the clintons the right would be going crazy and then on top of it. if the democrats had given a response in spanish you'd be all over it. >> sean: why you know why you're wrong? because if barack obam
the defense cuts especially, forcing this kind of draconian cuts on the pentagon, republicans would never go for. >> he thought it was going to be this ideal situation where it would be, it would inflict so much pain on both sides that both sides would then come to the table and want to bargain. problem is that the president's always talking about the balanced approach to our fiscal situation and our problems, and the republicans said, okay, in the fiscal cliff deal we'll give you your tax increases. so he has the tax hikes, but there have been no spending cuts. so now the republicans who actually for the first time in the obama presidency have the stronger hand, now they should come in and say, okay, you keep arguing for a balanced approach. we gave you your tax hikes, where are the spending cuts? and make him answer to that. jon: and has been pointed out many time, the additional money, the revenue as they like to call it that was raised by the that tax hike immediately got spent by the congress when they received the sandy aid bill. >> that's right. all in one shot it's been evaporateed.
defending former republican senator chuck hagel saying that he will be an excellent pentagon chief. now, this comes after a fiery confirmation hearing with members of the senate armed services committee. he faced some tough questions including this one from senator james imhoff. >> why do you think the rainan foreign ministry strongly supports your nomination to be the secretary of defense? >> i have a difficult enough time with american politics senator. i have no idea, but thank you. >> senators could vote as early as this week. washington times columnist charlie hurt joins us to weigh in on whether we can expect senator hagel to be cob confirmed as defense secretary. >>> the reverend jesse jackson is leading a march today in honor of a chicago teenager killed this week. the 15-year-old high school band member gunned down days after attending the president's inauguration. just the latest victim in a city where there are 515 murders last year alone. more than 100 shooting incidents have occurred since january 1. reverend jackson called on president obama to come to his home town of chi
reasons, the pentagon and the planners have made their own case to the president. and with the new resource problem we confronted in mali, look what it took to support french against al qaeda sub contractors. if we can't do that when in fact americans are held hostage and killed, what kind of response do you really expect for . >> is that a consequence of the u.s. not getting involved in mali earlier? >> what is the implication from that we in effect need to be involved -- . >> the u.s. has been concerned about mali for at least eight nows. -- months only now there's a discussion about where we should do more. >> look, in the time of the great extra cater. we are -- that -- what is threaten, our foreign policy is not manic interventionism right now. that's not what we have to worry about here. >> let's move on. if you have a question, raise your hand. i'm going ask you to identify yourself. keep your question short. let's go to [inaudible] of radio-- and then go to the woman right here in the black and hand the microphone to her. >> hi, my name is -- [inaudible] that syria is part
and commented on the pentagon lifting of the ban on women in the front lines of combat. one of the speakers was the first female pilot to fly in combat. here's a little of what she had to say. >> sitting in a squatter officer school, i was getting ready to go to fighter training, i just completed the triathlon, a bunch of injured 3, special forces, i take to their -- kicked their butts, and you had guys saying, "women don't have the endurance to do, admissions." you want to go outside and talk about this? [laughter] let's go for a run. the difficulty and the reason -- and seeing it even in the debates that are going on even though the train has left the station, a lot of people who are against this thing get away with you have been excluded from doing this, you have not done it, i have done it, therefore you cannot do it. i don't know if you have seen the nuances on tv lately. sure, you have been in combat and engaged with the enemy anbut that is the different from sustained operations. that is the language you are hearing, on fox, and it might. [laughter] -- fox, anyway. [laughter] justin
of the partnership that the state department has forms with the pentagon first with bob gates and then mike mullen and then leon panetta and marty dempsey. by the same token america's traditional allies and friends in europe and east asia remains a valuable partners on nearly everything we do and we have spent considerable energy strengthening those bonds over the past four years. and i would be quick to add the u.n., the imf and the world bank and nato are also still essential. but all of our institutions and our relationships need to be modernized, and complemented by new institutions, relationships and partnerships that are tailored for new challenges and modeled to the needs of a variable landscape. like how we elevated the g20 during the financial crisis or created the climate and clean air coalition out of the state department to fight short-lived pollutants like black carbon or work with partners like turkey, where the two listed up the first global counterterrorism form. we are also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. consider the african union in somalia and th
and the government from cyber attacks. at a symposium this morning, pentagon and security officials. live coverage at 9:45 eastern here on c-span2. and over on c-span, a conversation on national security and defense spending priorities. we'll hear from former deputy defense secretary john deutsche and former service armed services committee chairman sam nunn. live coverage from the brookings institution begins at 10 eastern. >> so the book concludes with lincoln attempting to get a job in zachary taylor's administration. it's a chapter called a comma at the end of the world. we're talking these days about meteors hitting the earth. well, at this time there's a talk of a meteor, a comet destroying the earth, and one of lincoln's friends is absolutely certain it's going to happen. in fact, lincoln chides him about it 12 years later when they meet again. but he's trying or very hard to get this job, commissioner of the general land office under zachary taylor, and he fails. it's a good thing he fails, right? if he's in washington, d.c. as a bureaucrat, he's not in illinois founding the republican par
on that "washington post" article that came out recently. it did suggest that the pentagon is pushing a plan that we keep on about 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the planning process thus far, but can you supported plan that would scheduled withdrawal of troops in advance? you know, we are looking at withdrawal of troops in afghanistan, and according to this article from about 8000 down to 1000 within a very short period of time. i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdrawal when, as you stated previously, so much depends upon conditions on the ground, what the government is doing, what their abilities are up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood what the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. and i certainly, my advice as a commander on the ground or commander of central command, i would provide my advice based upon where i think the security forces are, a
Search Results 0 to 39 of about 40 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)